IN THE HIGH COURI' OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER,
BEFORE t'"
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENn.r.zxsjEL*§:)\n(L$.{x T.
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nd. 104953
BETWEEN:
Mr. B. P. Mahendra,
Aged about 46 years, V '
S/0. Late B.M. Puttaswainy,'-_ 2;] 1 '
Resident at No.32.
Laxman Mudaliar Street; -- if *
Cantonment, 2; "
Bangalore __
APPELLANT
[By sry. C. J.'"}.'.*.vCVi£/'v.)
1.
V Smt. i}ceV1aVRarIAiaefie1ndra,
.. about .66 years,
” “Dr. Rarnéchandra,
‘ = T T No.9 Links Drive,
erg:-:; Myers FL 33913, U.S.A.,
g “-Vt’Reptki., by her P.A.H01der,
M_r.~I?32i;iakrishna. B. L.,
Aged about 66 years,
S’/.0”. Late B.M. Iakshman,
~ ‘ “~._R/a N0.1O5, 3rd Main, am Cross,
* HIG Layout, R.M.V. 2nd Stage,
Bangiaore — 560 094.
$73
TO
2. Smt. Prerna Venkatesh Hegde,
Aged about 61 years,
W/0. Venkatesh Hegde.
Resident at No.32,
Laxman Mudaiiar Street,
Cantonment,
Bangalore — 560 001.
RE§PONDEI”§TS’4
[By Sri. S.R. Shiva Prakash, Adv. for R1 ‘
R2 served )
1i=*=€t*$;
This MFA filed U/Sec. Q4 R’,<.W'-9rder,'4,3'A. R~u1§*:.1'[1'}'of,
CPC, against the order 'dated 30.10.2OQ8'~«,__'passed in.'
O.S.No.9271 / 2007 on {A NO,"ii..,gon the file" of V';:Additiona1
City Civil Judge, Bangalore,——-SCCi*I;18, "aJ.I.Qw1'ng the IA
No.1 filed U/ order 39'.'fftfiBS Ti ~-for T.I.
apfieai::_eoir1_ing"Ao11.,for,iAdmission, this day, the
Court,,'deiiVer.e»d the 'foi1oyving:_
' ef§§hGMENT
ffhigs the first defendant against the
the triad dddd "Court dated 30–10–08 in aliowing
1 the piaintiff and granting an order of
teniporaryv 'injunction, restraining the defendant from
galirertatirig the suit 'A' schedule property to. the extent of
1w,V/V315' share of the piajntiff.
6%
2.. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as they are referred to in the suit before the
trial Court.
3. it is the case of the plaintiff jféisfffthe
daughter of BM. Puttaswarny. The first defe_ndanti’
brother. The second defendantis’he’r7«.sister’;f«._VShit in’;/~\’
scheduie property was owned fath,e’r.’A’ ”
death of her father, the first”i’rdefendafitV_ Became the
‘kartha’ and rnanage:r”‘i~i_0f is “not effecting
partition and giving share in suit ‘A’
scheduie propevrtyffn’1″Ther’efore,%she has brought this suit
for partition possession of her 1 /353 share in
the suit gpschfedniewproperty. Along with the suit, she made
than vapfpiieatvien und’erfOrder 39 Rules 1 and 2, seeking an
A’ordergfoffi?ernp~0rary injunction restraining the defendant
from a].ie11-ating the suit property. The trial Court by
:_”impngn’ed order ailowed the application and granted
r.-t’ernpora1’y injunction restraining the first defendant from
alienating the suit ‘A’ schedule property and against
which, the first defendant has come in appeal.
4. Sri. Nagabhushan, learned
for the first defendant submits, Suit.._”A’ . 1
originally belonged to one
B.M.PuttasWamy, the fat1{eg’–~.,,Qf “arid the
defendants as executvorgto carrjgr. During
his life time, Puttaswarny’ the desire of
Rangarnma. :Ther’efor§e: first defendant
to carry outflthe. subinission that when the
pla.inti.gtff”isV that the suit property
belonged she has right over the same,
question of kind of injunction including the
‘one’i’gran:’ted thelutrial Court does not arise. By virtue of
granted by the trial Court, the first
defendant unable to fulfill and carry out the desire of
Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal
l setting aside the impugned order.
fiég.
5. The second defendant, who is the sister of the
plaintiff, supported the case of the first defendant.
6. The learned Counsel appearing forpptllielglpflaintiff
submits. in a suit for partition and separate’Vpgossessioriglif
the first defendant who is a rnalev’Jrnlernb._eii._ 0ri.At_he_V¢:l_eath’l’of 7
the father of the plaintiff, oeci/ipies’.th’e_ position “of
and manager if he is not relstrained lfrorln -“alienating the
suit property and if alI_’o’\iI:eVd’lte..’do.he Certainly
alienate the suitVproperty’l’and.lin:» ‘a_’n_leVent it will Eead
to multiplicity” .lanld–l’the..:purpose of filing of
this trial has rightly granted
temporary “injunction”‘restraining the defendant from
alienating property and therefore he prays for
l disrriilssalg ofthe appeal.
the learned Counsef for the parties
and”4«..per_u’sed the impugned order. There is no dispute
Jbetweer1~– “the parties that they are the children of
g.’lB_;’M.{-luttaswainy and the suit property belonged to
43%
Rangamma. She executed a will appointing B.1\/E.
Puttaswamy as executor to carry out certain. in
respect of suit ‘A’ property. Rangamma died.__ to
the first defendant, I-3.i\/i. Puttaswamy couid»
the acts as desired by” Rangamrna dur.ixngu”hi’s..’1ife
therefore he nominated thertirst defendant *
It is not in dispute that gangainma,
revenue records canviedfltop he in the name of
Puttaswamy after: of the plaintiff
and defendants The plaintiff had
eXecuted_..G_I5Afiniifavofif defendant in respect of
suit and later she withdrew the
same. has not stated what are those
pp acts’-he: requiiiedfiev Carry out immediately and how the
in.terest.__of Rtaiigainma will be affected if he is restrained
from of suit ‘A’ schedule property till the
‘V._pdispos.a:i=:ofV the suit on merits. Considering the nature of
A “:ff”thVef”‘s_uit that it is one for partition, the triad Court is
jufistified in granting temporary injunction, restraining the
(Lg.
first defendant from alienating to the extent of the
plaintiffs 1/ I351 share in suit ‘A’ schedule propVer.tuy’;..V As
such, I do not find any illegality or irregulaiityfin’
of the trial Court. The order of the trial
proper and does not call for interference or ::;_}%.t it
this stage the learned courisel 1;de.fendant
appellant herein submits that___a”-direction’ issued to
the trial Court to disposé’ ofthes1,ii’t.Ve§tpeditiously.
8. Hence I pass thefoll:oWing._ord.er;” it it
_{.i} 44 ,is:fj disniissed and the trial
3′ .3 “_,Cou1*tisfjdirectedg to dispose of the suit on
‘ ‘merits’ and? in.@.Qt:ordance with law Within
one year’ from the date of receipt of a
V l * order, and
‘°{iii }_ Theipartgies to the suit are directed to co-
” ‘operatewith the trial Court to dispose of
,, 1..th_e__As.uit as directed by this Court. No
order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
